Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night in the Main Committee I spoke on the Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009 and unfortunately, due to timing, I did not get to put on the record all of my concerns. I want to say that I support the private member’s bill as put forward by the member for Warringah, seconded by me, which provides up to $75,000 in compensation for the victims of international terrorism when they are subjected to terrorism overseas. Why do I support this? I support this because I have a personal knowledge, feeling for and understanding of those who have been victims of international terrorism. A person I have known for some 14 years, Paul Anicich, and his wife Penny, and Tony Purkiss, who I have known for a while, are outstanding people. I have seen the effect of that bomb blast in Bali in 2005 on their lives.

As members of parliament we can stand here and speak all we like about what we think or understand they are going through—the pain, the suffering, the loss of quality of life, the loss of income, the stresses on families—but I am not Paul Anicich and I am not Tony Purkiss. I cannot feel what they feel. I can only think I understand what they are going through.

As I said in the Main Committee last night, the Paul Anicich that I met 14 years ago was a leading legal practitioner in the Hunter. He was a model corporate citizen, shown through his engagement and leadership in the community. Tony Purkiss was an outstanding man. But I see these people now and it breaks my heart to see what they have gone through. Paul Anicich, when he came to see me not long after he got back to Australia and started to recover, wanted nothing more than a victim’s gold health card to help offset the additional financial costs of health treatment for what he went through in that bomb blast on that night in October 2005. Paul did not want cash; he just wanted some assistance by way of a card. He found it extremely traumatic to go to a new doctor and have to go through the whole scenario again, of what happened to him and the treatments—that is, of reliving that moment over and over again. He wanted to be spared that.

The private member’s bill put forward by the member for Warringah and seconded by me has our support. It was argued last night that there was no precedent for a $75,000 payment for victims in this situation. I would put to you that under the provisions of state governments there is a $75,000 victim of crime payment available. We are saying that these are Australian citizens, that these are Australians that deserve our support and that we as a federal government should make available to those people a payment of $75,000. That would go not just to the individual victims but to parallel the state provisions so that, if somebody had unfortunately been killed by one of these acts, their next of kin would be able to access this support—as, indeed, they are able under the state provisions—to help. This would not be a hugely expensive exercise. To date, if all the around 300 people from Australia who have been victims of international terrorism were paid $75,000, it would amount to less than $23 million. That is not a lot of money in the scheme of things.

The Prime Minister today decided to berate me for wanting to speak in support of this. I support his idea of establishing a national insurance scheme. But that is for the individual. This is about supporting the victims of international terrorism. I would have thought that doing something to help our fellow Australians who have suffered at this would have been a noble thing to do. So I asked the Prime Minister to go back to the drawing board, to reconsider his opinion and to look at this as a special case, as a special need for support. There is no member in this parliament who could ever know—and I hope they will never experience—what these people as individuals and their families have gone through. My call goes out to the Prime Minister: have a heart and consider the plight of these people and their pain and their suffering.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to correct the public record following the contribution of the member for Paterson. Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know with private member’s bills, there are no seconders. There are absolutely no seconders. It was not the member for Paterson’s private member’s bill; it was in fact the member for Warringah’s.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Chifley is misleading the House. I actually had to sign a form seconding it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to you and the rest of the Speaker’s panel for the way you have facilitated the business of the Main Committee. Let me give you the history. In fact, we did have a whips meeting and there was no proposal before the whips meeting about the private member’s bill. We concluded that meeting. Then I was approached and told it was an oversight, that they wanted to make a change. So I did. That change was made, and it was agreed that there would be two speakers—one each from each side for 10 minutes. Then there was a further approach—and this is where I think you deserve due credit, being responsible for the Main Committee—that the opposition be allowed to split their speaking time on the second reading debate. Again, we agreed. There were supposed to be two opposition speakers for five minutes each and one government speaker. There was a government speaker for 10 minutes. But the first speaker, the proposer of the bill, was Mr Abbott, who spoke for seven minutes.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He spoke for five minutes.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He spoke for seven minutes. Then, when the time of the member for Paterson expired, halfway through his speech, both of them launched a vicious attack on the Deputy Speaker. They suggested all sorts of things about agreements about time. In fact the member for Paterson stated—and it is in the Hansardthat he was entitled to a further 20 minutes to speak on it. Then he said he wanted to have a vote on it.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s right.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. The former Leader of the House, Mr Abbott, did not know the procedures of the House for private member’s bills. I would say that this was a very important issue. I will concede to the member for Paterson and the member for Warringah that this is a very important issue. But wouldn’t you think that a former Leader of the House and the junior shadow minister for defence, representing the shadow minister for defence in this chamber, would understand standing orders and the procedures that are required? But no. They tried to harass Deputy Speaker Thomson in the Main Committee. I want to put on record that I think the member for Wills handled himself with dignity. He was correct in his rulings in dismissing all the points that were being made by the member for Warringah, the former Leader of the House, and the member for Paterson. He deserves to be commended. In fact, he was very conscious that any delay beyond the expiry of the time for the private member’s bill would have knock-on effects.

Again, I want to place on record my appreciation to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the way you were so flexible to accommodate this second reading debate in the Main Committee. It is a matter of regret to me the way both members—who should know better—have tried to prosecute their case. They should have let the dignity of what they were trying to do speak for itself rather than try to use sleazebag tactics both in this House and in the Main Committee.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don’t understand your own standing orders, Roger!

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I understand standing orders. You ought to read them. You ought to open them for the first time, member for Paterson. Someone who has been Leader of the House I say should have a very good grasp of the standing orders. He should understand what happens with a second reading debate, should know that it does not go to a vote and should know that, when asked by the member for Paterson, it cannot be referred back to the House for a vote. Why don’t you just stand up in a dignified way and seek bipartisan support for what you are trying to—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 9 pm, the debate is interrupted.